Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support

Previous thread: does an initcall level of "0s" actually exist? by Robert P. J. Day on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 6:51 pm. (3 messages)

Next thread: Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro toalinuxinterfaceforonaccess scanning by Theodore Tso on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 7:55 pm. (2 messages)
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@...>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@...>, Robert Hancock <hancockr@...>, Alan Cox <alan@...>, Gabor Gombas <gombasg@...>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...>, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...>, <linux-ide@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 6:57 pm

[Resending because gmane cut off the To: header in Pavel's email, sorry.]

Not quite, I'm afraid. Even if the disk isn't spinning, we still have to
make sure that it won't spin up in a precarious situation. Of course, if
it wasn't user space but some kernel routine that consults the
accelerometer and decides when to stop I/O, then we could indeed stop
querying the accelerometer while the disk is in standby mode and delay a
subsequent spin up for the time required to gather the necessary
accelerometer data. However, as I have explained before, it is not quite
trivial to implement all this in kernel space and I'd like to get head
unloading merged first.

Regards,

Elias
--

Previous thread: does an initcall level of "0s" actually exist? by Robert P. J. Day on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 6:51 pm. (3 messages)

Next thread: Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro toalinuxinterfaceforonaccess scanning by Theodore Tso on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 7:55 pm. (2 messages)